Loose Change - Part II

[karim]

I really like this part in the copyright infringement letter to Dylan.

Furthermore, it is clear that your intent is not to spread a controversial message but rather to profit, given your aggressive marketing campaign and your sales of the DVD version of the film for $17.95.

I would add ten smilies highfiving but I gather some don't like them.

 

[Trifikas]

over-simplification attempt by me, number 22...

would the lattice-work that was each of the floors provide a pull towards the center when weight landed on it? I'm thinking that if you tied a rope between two polls, and pulled down on the rope, the polls would bend towards each other. Or a spider-web anchored on branches, if a weight was applied to the web, the branches would be pulled inwards.

Similarly, when the mass hits each floor during the collapse, would the lattice apply an inward force to the walls, however brief, for each impact? and would it be enough to keep the collapse reasonably straight, or wouldn't it really have an effect?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I overlooked something in this small passage when responding to the forum member in my post #550:

...To me the inescapable conclusion that all of this keeps leading me, is that the buildings were demolished from within. How exactly? I don’t know. Using known explosives is my best guess. Maybe somebody has a better guess.

No one should be "guessing" at all.

First off, the default position in this case will be that airplanes collided with two buildings, setting off a chain of events that led to their destruction. Why is it the default? The process corresponded to simple, unextraordinary processes.

Now, it is not enough to just challenge that position in order to negate it, as so many alternate scenario proponents seem to believe. It reminds me of what Arthur Conan Doyle, writing as Sherlock Holmes, said: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Thing is, nothing that happened on 9/11 was impossible or even extraordinary from a physical or human behavioral standpoint (the latter meaning to indicate acts of war by an enemy group).

Here's what's extraordinary: Countless people -- Americans -- conspired to commit indiscriminate mass-murder on thousands of their fellow citizens, as well as those of numerous other countries. They did this in secret, not only during the planning stages, but the set-up, the execution, and the post-op follow-through. In addition, rather than, say, simply plant and detonate a highly destructive bomb in a highly populated area, these countless planners and technicians took on the task of masking their efforts so as to look like something else entirely (hijacked airplanes, building demolitions, etc.) not only complicating their plans, but in doing so also increasing the risk of their discovery, be it in regard to the human component or the physical crime scene debris. Furthermore, these planners and technicians apparently performed this convoluted operation (which, it should be added would cost an astounding amount of money not only to carry out, but also in expenditures of hush-money to all participants) in a busy metropolitan area in order to further their goals for world domination, as a prelude to Part 2: the correspondingly very simple act of planting evidence of weapons of mass destruction in remote regions of Iraq as a way to prove justification and continued cover for their efforts.

Oh, wait.

 

[Gravy]

No one should be "guessing" at all.

Great posts, Regnad. Thanks for being a weapon of mass instruction.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Gravy, that's high praise coming from one who's made the kind of effort you have in regard to this topic. Thanks.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I really like this part in the copyright infringement letter to Dylan.





I would add ten smilies highfiving but I gather some don't like them.

You should post to the LC boards then.

I knwo Roxdog over there is a huge fan of of the "50 ROFL smilies in a row" post.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here's a conspiracy theory for you:

The Scholars for 9-11 site lists the following members:

Philip J. Berg, Esq. (FM)
Attorney at Law, Former Deputy Attorney General

John C. Austin (AM)
Juris Doctorate; Music publishing; Radio broadcasting

James Hill (FM)
Intellectual property attorney, Radiology, USC School of Medicine

Richard T. Jeroloman (AM)
International law; Intellectual property; Electronic engineering


http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

Surely the Scholars for 9-11 Truth are aware of the most well known 9-11 truth video. They have more than enough legal expertise to recognize immedeately the trouble Avery & Co. were in for from thier unauthorized use of the Naudet video footage.

So why didn't the scholars alert thier fellow truthseekers? Why did they stand idly by while Avery & co. set themselves up for a potential 2.1 million dollar legal judgement?

My theory? This band of egotistical university profs and lawyers were upset and jealous that this bunch of punk-ass kids not even out of college yet upstaged them and stole thier thunder over the internet. Not oly do I believe the scholars LIHOPed LC's current legal troubles (Let It Happen On Pourpose) but I believe that the scholars probablt MIHOPed it (Made It Happen On Pourpose, the scholars alerted the Naudets to the intellectual property theft). Given the truth movements notorious habit of eating its own, MIHOP is the most likely scenario.

As this is a conspiracy theory, I will simply assume this is the case without additional research. I will review evidence submitted wich contradicts the theory, but reserve the right to ignore it at my convenience.

 

[Shrinker]

About the lawsuit:

First of all isn't it hilarious how the hero of the movement filled his pants and pulled down his entire site instantly? He's got three days plus the weekend to comply with their demands, and none of them refers to his T-shirt sales, or blogs or whatever. What a chicken. Wonder if he got a good night's sleep.

Secondly, once he's complied, will he get sued anyway? The thing is all over the net, folks are showing it in bars, the damage is done, the brothers are rightly peeved. Anyone seen similar cases?

I also notice the letter says the LC script claims the footage was paid for. I'm not likely to watch the thing to confirm it but it would be a nice deliberate lie to highlight in the Viewers Guide.

Thoughts on Dylan Avery's 'career.'... I do have some experience with real documentary makers. A $2.1M+ lawsuit brought on entirely by their own blunders would likely finish their careers permanetly. Now poor little Dylan's got to be worrying about where the next lawsuit is coming from. There's no way he bought worldwide publication rights for all of his footage on his 5 figure budget, especially consisering the nature of his film. LC3 is gonna be short. My guess is somebody like some alternative media outlet will give him some cash to do a new project. It'll suck big-time and he'll have to go find a job.

Lastly, has anyone told the Joe's Apartment people?

Oh sorry, one more thing...

 

[WildCat]

Thoughts on Dylan Avery's 'career.'... I do have some experience with real documentary makers. A $2.1M+ lawsuit brought on entirely by their own blunders would likely finish their careers permanetly.

That will be the least of his worries if the libel, slander, and defamation of character lawsuits start rolling in.

 

[Gravy]

About the lawsuit:

First of all isn't it hilarious how the hero of the movement filled his pants and pulled down his entire site instantly? He's got three days plus the weekend to comply with their demands, and none of them refers to his T-shirt sales, or blogs or whatever. What a chicken. Wonder if he got a good night's sleep.

Secondly, once he's complied, will he get sued anyway? The thing is all over the net, folks are showing it in bars, the damage is done, the brothers are rightly peeved. Anyone seen similar cases?...

My guess is that they took the whole site down because in several places Avery bragged about how good the DVD sales were. Recently he had a blog post that said they were turning over orders & fulfillment to a third party because they couldn't keep up with the volume. Plus, he always encourages people to burn as many copies as possible and distribute them. In one of his recent radio interviews he said that through Google Video, over 2 million people now know "the truth." I assume that's just a measure of page views, though. And Avery told the Village Voice a few months ago that his people had distributed over 50,000 DVDs. That statement may come back to haunt him.

I'm sure there wouldn't be any suit if they comply with the terms of the infringement notice. It's unlikely that Louder Than Words has any assets worth going after. I think the interesting thing is what effect this will have on the next "LC" version, which is supposedly going to be called "Loose Change Final Cut." I assume that most of the other footage has been pirated, so will they be able to buy the rights for everything, will it be released as a free version only, or will we instead soon see "Loose Change" as a graphic novel?

edited to add further musings

 

[WildCat]

Looks like we jumped the gun gloating about the lawsuit against Avery & Co. Legal expert (and judge?) jackchit has weighed in:

I have to say this is a storm in a tee-cup, as for the naudet brothers they do not have a frogs leg to stand on.
Firstly I'm sure that if they were serious about bringing some sort of litigation against our boys then they would do it straight away,
secondly this footage is a matter of public interest and (I'm assuming) was a piece of evidence used in the 911 commission report therefore if push came to shove louder than words would be able to apply retrospectivly for release of the footage under the freedom of information act without just cause for the application to be denied, as the American administration have always maintained this was an attack on America therefore all its citizens, Dylan and co are then as American citizens the victims of these attacks also, under the freedom of information act if you are a victim, then any information pertaining to the crime commited against you becomes your property to do with as you wish. So in conclusion the footage of the entire naudet brothers doc is the property of all the citizens of the United States, correct me if i'm wrong bit Jason, Dylan & Korey are US citizens so they have been using thier own property to make this doc...... case dismissed.

Trust me this will not amount to a hill of beans, but if it did then give me a sofa to sleep on and i will come over and represent you for free.

Love, Jack

Foiled again by the geniuses at Loose Change!

Excuse me while I snicker uncontrollably...

 

[Shrinker]

I'm sure there wouldn't be any suit if they comply with the terms of the infringement notice. It's unlikely that Louder Than Words has any assets worth going after. I think the interesting thing is what effect this will have on the next "LC" version, which is supposedly going to be called "Loose Change Final Cut." I assume that most of the other footage has been pirated, so will they be able to buy the rights for everything, will it be released as a free version only, or will we instead soon see "Loose Change" as a graphic novel?

These things usually don't have a fixed fee. The price is often determined by who you are, who you're showing it to, and what you're tying to say with it. I suspect if all the other copyright owners find out he made his name and fortune first, then only asked permission when he got caught out, the fees would be increased considerably.

Of course I don't know how the owners could possibly find out such a thing. I wonder if some wag has compliled a list of who owns each shot. Just for investigative purposes.

 

[Gravy]

Of course I don't know how the owners could possibly find out such a thing. I wonder if some wag has compliled a list of who owns each shot. Just for investigative purposes.

I don't know who would have done such a thing.

 

[Darat]

Yah but the real reason they are doing this:

"I was talking to a friend and he said the Naudet Bros. are Freemasons, anyone else hear that?" (Faithleaper)

 

[Z]

I do not believe that the NIST report is an accurate assessment of how the towers collapsed.

Your beliefs are irrelevant. The NIST report is, in fact, a fairly accurate assessment.

In particular, they do not at all address the topics of how the towers managed to collapse symmetrically,

You don't have to explain why water is wet, after all.

And they hardly came down 'symmetrically' - look at the footprint of the damage. Several nearby buildings were destroyed, and not in a uniform manner.

and how all of the contents were pulverized.

They weren't. Many photos exist showing steel beams and girders and large fragments... Much of the content was pulverized, yes... but that's what happens when buildings that large fall down.

To me, these are very important points. (The rest of you seem to not agree.)

Because you are wrong.

You seem to think it is normal that the towers collapsed the way they did, because, as you say, “We’ve never seen those events happen before.” I agree partially that we’ve never seen it before. But only because we’ve never seen all of these things happen simultaneously. We have seen:
1. High-rise tower fires

Though rarely in steel -only cored buildings. In those high-rise tower fires where reinforced concrete was not present (the upper stories of that one hotel, for example), the steel failed and collapse occured.

2. planes hit skyscrapers (Empire State building)

Lower velocities, less potent fuels, less powerful impacts, different building structure.

3. Buildings collapse symmetrically

Including buildings collapsing due to fire. (That we have not seen this with the WTC will surely be ignored, though)

(Yes, I know, the specifics of these events have different details.)

And the devil, as they say, is in the details.

But let me ask the demolition experts amongst you. Wouldn’t you agree that the way WTC1 and WTC2 towers fell, would be considered a text-book example of how to bring down a high-rise, if you needed to?

I'm no expert, but I have known a few, and assisted in several demo projects. The answer is, ABSOLUTELY NOT! The collateral damage was absolutely intolerable if this had been a controlled demolition. No demo expert in the world is going to tell you this was a text-book example. If anything, it looks like what it was - a collapse due to massive damage.

Any fool who brings down a building deliberately like THAT - would be blacklisted. Quite possibly internationally.

I mean if it was a condemned building, and needed to be demolished. It did come straight down.

By 'straight' you mean 'spreading collateral damage over a wide area'...?

And how, exactly, would you expect it to come down? Topple over like a domino? Like a rigid tree trunk?

Demolition firms get paid allot of money to pull that off. According to the NIST, all that you need to do to implode a building is:
1. Cut away several steel supports in a few top floors (Simulating the plane hit)
2. Set a big fire, and keep it burning until the building falls.
Does this sound right to you?

That sounds right for how to cause a building to collapse. However, the building did NOT implode. Essentially, it pancaked - causing explosions throughout the structure, ejecting material across a wide area.

So, back to “Does anybody care?”

I care - I am deeply concerned as to how you can choose to be so willfully ignorant. Even if they used controlled demo to fake a collapse, I expect it would have went off a LOT neater than it did.

To me the inescapable conclusion that all of this keeps leading me, is that the buildings were demolished from within. How exactly? I don’t know. Using known explosives is my best guess. Maybe somebody has a better guess.

A conclusion from ignorance is irrelelvant.

This is something I am currently researching. I’ve gotten allot of info off of the internet, but that’s because it’s my only real source as of now.

And that's the key problem. GIGO, as they say.

Hint: find a demolitions expert, and have a sit-down. Talk to some real experts in field, not some wanna-be amateur detectives. The Internet is a great place if you want cheat codes and scummy porn, but a lousy place to start an investigation into complex subjects that you have no grasp of.

If anybody else wants to discuss the physical properties of how the buildings came down, for the purpose of exploring whether or not it was a controlled demolition, jump up and say “me.”

Why? You have nothing useful to contribute.

 

[60hzxtl]

Well, now we have an area that I have a little knowledge in.

If, 'like, hey man, Dylan Avery' has infringed on the copyright, then the affected party owns the original and all of the copies and is within their rights to seize all of the copies.

When I suggested the easiest way to counter LC2 was to take their film and over narrate it with Gravy's wonderful blast, I suggested it as the quickest, simplest, and ultimately cheapest form to get the word out that LC2 was bilge water. All that would be required was to pay the owners of the original clips since LC did not shoot anything original. As a film maker, I assumed that these kids did that. I assumed that they knew that. Their soundtrack went through my head like a nail -- does anyone know if that is 'original' or is that copyrighted music, because unless they paid and cleared the rights, that's stolen too.

But then, since the government passed the laws to protect copyrighted material, and its up to the owner to protect it, it must be part of the conspiracy!

If nothing else, this proves that 'like, hey man, Dylan' does not even know his craft, much less science.

And bravo to the Frankfurt, Kurnit, Klein & Selz, the law firm, 'cause they're not 'just asking questions man.' They demanded action. Provable action.

 

[Gravy]

The whole idea of copyright protection is retarded. Only a career bitch would try to enforce a copyright on a video of a natural disaster. Anyway, everyone knows that Jules Naudet staged the footage. He didn't even bother to do a little postproduction work to make that drone aircraft look like a 747. Risking his life was just a clever way to cover up the fact that he was in on the plot. Who put him up to it? The Jooos, of course. And we all know that Cheney had a hand in sending the notice of copyright infringement. We Loosers may have to unleash our secret, ancient Chinese torture: the death of a thousand e-mails upon the one remaining, fearful globalist. Keep in mind the ulterior motives of these people as the situation unfolds. Seriously. Do it.

p.s. Has anyone seen coverage of this story on CNN?

 

[Stellafane]

Looks like we jumped the gun gloating about the lawsuit against Avery & Co. Legal expert (and judge?) jackchit has weighed in:

Foiled again by the geniuses at Loose Change!

Excuse me while I snicker uncontrollably...

Gee, jackchit sure places a lot of faith in the legal system of a country he claims to believe is run by murderers. He assumes that said country will grant his clients a fair trial, even though it's overwhelmingly in the government's best interest that they be found guilty and the distribution of the LC video stopped.

So this government can plan the most massive and convoluted conspiracy in history, but can't fix a lousy copyright trial (which would involve a conspiracy of a mere dozen people, 13 if you included the judge)? Makes you wonder what jackchit really believes.

 

[Belz...]

"This has nothing to do with copyright - its all about cover-up. The Naudets was probably involved in the whole scheme from the very beginning...they were really lucky with those shots on 9/11 - don´t you think?"

That's why it's called luck!

Because remember, the concrete started to pulverize instantly. We see it in the videos. Also remember, all of the concrete pulverized.

You can tell just by watching the video, I summize ?

 

[Belz...]

I'm not much of a drinker myself, wich makes me kind of an oddity in Québec. But I do swear alot, I guess it balances out.

I don't drink at all, and I compensate by swearing even more.

My experience with controlled demolition is that the towers should not have fallen in such a manner.

That's like saying that your experience in pulling teeth out of people's mouths tells you that a particular tooth shouldn't have fallen on its own like that.

They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line. They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying.

Talk is cheap, bucko.

My proof: Controlled Demolitions have never and will never implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires.

And there you have it! No controlled demolition.

It happened on WTC1 and WTC2, and the damage was very different on each building.

Looked damn similar to me.

Asymmetrical damage, symmetrical collapse. This is not incredulity. It is sound reasoning.

No... it's simplistic, grade-school level reasoning because you see only two factors in the collapse of two of the tallest buildings in the world.

Remember, it’s not just the fact that an expert says something. Is their reasoning sound? Talk is cheep.

Indeed, it is "cheep", like I said.